Press Releases

Washington, DC—Senator Jim Webb, who served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and later Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, today opposed legislation which would make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The legislation is opposed by the Secretary of Defense and all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Guard is by statute a reserve component of the U.S. Army and Air Force.  

“I believe this legislation is unnecessary,” said Senator Webb. “Anyone who is saying that citizen soldiers are not at the table right now is being unnecessarily divisive and I think unfair to the stewardship and leadership of the Army and Air Force. Citizen soldiers are at the table. They have been respected throughout the entire history of this country.

“The Army National Guard has a history of being trained and equipped as part of the United States Army; the Air National Guard has a history of being trained and equipped as a part of the United States Air Force,” said Senator Webb. “I don't believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been failing to represent the interests of the Army Guard in the Army, or the Air Guard in the Air Force.

“I think particularly since the Total Force Concept was announced--and I had the privilege of being the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs at a time that we were really working these matters out--the National Guard has really been able to have an input in a very measurable way,” said Senator Webb.

In 2007, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves recommended against making the CNGB a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs because it “would run counter to intra- and inter-service integration and would reverse progress toward jointness and interoperability.”

Background:

The National Guard’s dual federal-state missions provide for: (1) Under Title 10, providing trained units and personnel for active duty in time of war, national emergency, and other times as national security may require, and (2) Under Title 32, providing federally funded service under the command of state governors for traditional training, major domestic emergencies, and homeland security special events.  The Guard also provides state-funded active duty service under command of the governor, usually for state emergencies. The Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act designated the CNGB as a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces and on other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense; and the principal advisor to the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force on matters relating to the National Guard. The CNGB was elevated to four-star rank in 2009.


Partial Transcript from Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearing
November 10, 2011

Senator Webb: General Dempsey, has any former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported this legislation?

General Martin E. Dempsey: Not to my knowledge, Senator, no.

Webb: Mr. Johnson, has any current or former Secretary of Defense supported this legislation?

Honorable Jeh C. Johnson: I have no knowledge of that, Senator.

Webb: Do you have any knowledge of anyone supporting it?

Johnson: I don't have knowledge to the contrary either, correct.

Webb: I would like to start by saying I think that anyone who is saying that citizen soldiers are not at the table right now is being unnecessarily divisive and I think unfair to the stewardship and leadership of the Army and Air Force. Citizen soldiers are at the table. They have been respected throughout the entire history of this country. When we talk about the operational changes since 9/11, we all have great appreciation for that. But at the same time, we need to recognize that throughout history, the National Guard has frequently answered the call. If you look at the number of forces in World War I and World War II, a large percentage came from the National Guard. 100,000 National Guardsmen went to Korea. This has always been the case. I think particularly since the Total Force Concept was announced--and I had the privilege of being the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs at a time that we were really working these matters out--the National Guard has really been able to have an input in a very measurable way.

I believe this legislation is unnecessary. I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been made about the Marine Corps and my role, which I am very proud of, in terms of articulating the legitimacy of the Marine Corps' role in Joint Chiefs. I wrote an article in 1972 for the Marine Corps Gazette when I was a 25-year-old captain in the Marine Corps. This article has been circulated by the proponents of this legislation. I'm flattered that somebody remembered this article from 39 years ago, but at the same time, the most important aspect of that article was that the Marine Corps is a separate service. You take a look at--to state the obvious--General Amos and Admiral Greenert. They are wearing different uniforms. The Army National Guard has a history of being trained and equipped as part of the United States Army; the Air National Guard has a history of being trained and equipped as a part of the United States Air Force. That is conceptually an entirely different matter. I don't believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been failing to represent the interests of the Army Guard in the Army, or the Air Guard in the Air Force. General Dempsey, would you say there's been any indication of that?

Dempsey: Absolutely no indication. Not only is there no indication, it just isn't accurate. They are represented by the two service chiefs.

Webb: Would you also agree that the Guard is as well represented as the Air Force Reserve and the Army Reserve?

Dempsey: I do, Senator.

Webb: Would there be any justification for adding the Reserve chiefs as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Dempsey: I would recommend against it for the same reason I recommend against adding the Guard.

Webb: With respect to non-Title 10 obligations, I have an observation from having spent three years being Secretary Weinberger's principal adviser on Guard and Reserve matters. There are a number of other jurisdictions in which non-Title 10 obligations of the National Guard are considered. Some of them, to be quite frank, are jealously guarded by the political processes of the governors. I certainly don't think they are in any way disregarded. To make a further point on this, we do have an Assistant Secretary of Defense who is responsible for Homeland Defense matters, and is a direct adviser to the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, I would just have to say that I’m opposed to this legislation. I believe it’s unnecessary. I don’t see a value. And I do understand the complications.


The prepared statements from all the witnesses at the hearing is available here: http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=5255

###